User talk:Scottch
Hey, on Image:Wiki2.png, you posted that "This non-free image is not usable under fair use" - it's absurd to say that's not fair use! --Nerd42 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Um, I think we're having a misunderstanding. To solve it, you need to read Wikipedia:Fair use to find out what "fair use" means. Fair use is an intellectual property term, and saying something is not fair use means you are saying it is a copyright violation. I think what happened was you just meant to say it was a duplicate image that wasn't useful, not a copyright-infringing image that wasn't covered under the fair use doctrine. Image:Wiki2.png was what I uploaded to replace the old green site logo - this was before it was adopted. We shouldn't need it anymore, yeah. --Nerd42 02:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC) A Thank You ^_^ You're welcome! I try my best! -_- But there are some pret-ty sloppy articles I've seen out there. Leon for one.--Dreyfus 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC) RE: Category:Items and cards Well, I think all of them should be on Category:Items because they are items made out of Sora's (And Riku's) memories or none of them because they really are just memories. But not only the item cards because they are not the item they are a card of it. What do you think? --Painocus *It seems like they would be distinct. "Items" for RPGs is more usable items or "quest" items, not the means of attacking. The card system (which I LOATHE, by the way) is so unique it ought to stand alone in my opinion. Scottch 12:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Image Links Sorry about any missing links to sources... I try to include them as best I can, but sometimes I accidentally close the tab (before copying the URL) that had it and lose the link entirely. That isn't really an excuse, though, is it? Guess not, even though it wasn't meant to be one. I myself actually put in the images of Disney characters out of the context of the games only to show how they actually look as opposed to how they were changed into 3D. Thanks for the notice, though!--Dreyfus 08:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC) *No big deal, a lot of yours already have sources, that was mostly for the other guy. And don't worry too much about the pictures, any pictures are better than none. I'm probably being too picky too early anyway, that's more a part of perfecting a wiki than expanding it. Any picture is better than none. I'll probably work on replacing those however, by screenshots form YouTubes if I have to, so if you have any objections put them on the community portal beforehand and I'll hold up. Scottch 09:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Regarding my edits I imagine this is because I'm tying to use an in-universe view for the articles. I think this is the best way to go around with those articles, but am willing to bend that ideology if consensus demands. We need to set up policy and guidelines for this sort of thing. I'm also entirely removing any speculative material, such as Heartless "classifications", which has no official basis and theories like how Assassins are really Marluxia's Nobodies. I'm basically sticking to official canon. Oh, and removing redundant categories, as is the norm on Wikipedia. Interrobang 08:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC) *Good good, the categories thing is good. But cooperative editing is what we're shooting for. Remember that Wikipedia and the Kingdom hearts WIki are in dramatically different stages of development. "The way it's done on Wikipedia" isn't always best for all wikis. Besides, this wiki is more targetted towards gamers than Wikipedia is; some speculation, when clear that it is non-canon, may be acceptable. I'm glad you took out the classification of heartless for example, but I'm not so happy with the fact that you wiped out all the Heartless descriptions. Scottch 08:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC) **I still don't see speculation as something to note; you're essentially giving credence when there shouldn't be any by simply noting it, even if you do not that it's non-canon. How are readers supposed to form their own theories if we push one particular theory in their face? Let them read and decide. I don't see any particular need for Heartless descriptors when they each get their own article. Interrobang 08:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC) ***A short summary never hurt anything. There's nothing wrong with redundant info, as long as the bulky stuff is in te main articles. And this isn't about "giving credence" - Wikipedia uses that idea with "notability" and such that having info or an opinion on a wiki (merely STATING it, not supporting it) somehow "validates" it, and that's simply not true. ***While you're here, I think we should hold off on the categories. For now, let's get as many as possible, and we can prune later. And not pruning via editing across several pages, but some sort of centralized discussion. Why don't we wait until we've got a general idea of what we're going to cover and get more users? Scottch 08:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC) ****My argument has nothing to do with notability. It's simply the fact that you'd be offering one theory over another, thus giving readers the impression that there's some credibility behind the theory over all others which isn't the case. As for the categories, I'm not sure what you're indicating. The collection of categories in a article or the creation of new categories? Why is this something that requires attention? Interrobang 08:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC) *****Well, it's not so much that we're throwing one theory over another. It's just sometimes there are really no other theories, but we should add those too. I'm not saying it completely correctly, but if we say something to the effect of "a common fan belief" or whatever and make it clear that this is not canon, it should be alright. I think info on the fandom is good material to cover. *****And what I mean about the categories is that we can work out what categories are "excessive" later, rather than doing so now by emptying them and leaving them dead. Obvious ones to remove, or vandal-created categories would be an exception of course, but for now let's hold off on emptying categories and get a good feel of community opinion before writing any off on a whim. Scottch 08:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC) ******I didn't really do such with the categories; I simply replaced two with more correct naming, like "Artificial Heartless" to "Emblem Heartless". Is that what you're indicating? Just so we're clear, by "redundant categories", I'm removing the parent category from a article that already has a child category. Interrobang 09:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC) *******Yeah, but with so many levels of categories, that might not be the best way to go about it. Plus not all of the parent-sub category relationships are good, I've seen some screwy ones and had to fix them, I'm sure there's more. Let's hold off on categories for now and include on the safe side, so it'll be easier to sort out later is all I'm saying. Scottch 09:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC) YouTube template Hi, it looks like there is no way of making the system accept a youtube in a template (other than subst: of course). It insists on reading them in the wrong order. But it looks like the solution you have for "what links here" will work well. -- sannse (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC) *Well, that's a bummer :-\ I'll have to come up with some sort of documentation for re-subbing the template if it is ever modified to be better. Scottch 10:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Improved OXIII I'm trying to make an better template that's less confusing and removes unknown variables here. Can you please tell me how to remove the third column? Xehanort's Heartless 13:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC) *I'm not sure what you mean. What unknown variables? Scottch 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC) **For example, there aren't any confirmed "original names" for VII-XII. Thus, we don't input anything in for that on their pages, and the template makes it so that the row for that won't show up on the pages. Xehanort's Heartless 14:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC) ***I have some code hidden in a sandbox hisory elsewhere, I'll have to look for it. However, it might be desirable to leave it up anyway, to distinguish that the person's original name or whatever is unknown, as opposed to the more senior members. Zexion stands out, fro example, for having an unknown weapon and a shattered weapon panel at the end of the game. Also note that all the titles are known, you may want to re-add that. Scottch 14:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC) ****Xemnas doesn't have one in Proof of Existence. Xehanort's Heartless 14:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC) *****True, but he does have a title that he is referred to by Ansem, the other Org members, and virtually every website listed everywhere. Scottch 14:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC) ******Websites don't count as official sources. If that were the case, we'd be listing DiZ as a member of Organization XIII and the Nobody of Ansem, which was supposedly such a obvious fact before Kingdom Hearts II was released. If "the Superior" was a title similar to the PoE titles, why don't we hear any of the PoE titles in dialogue? Why would it be omitted from Proof of Existence in the first place (I'm sure they could've make the arch a readable target or something)? I believe we should veer on the safe side and not make assumptions, as many did with DiZ's identity. Xehanort's Heartless 14:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC) *******Well, we're not doing guesswork, we're talking about something that has already occurred, not speculating over identities as other websites did about DiZ. As to all the "why's", there's not really an answer to those, but it's generally accepted that his title is "the Superior" - in fact, you're only the second person I've ever heard say otherwise, the first being another editor here. Scottch 14:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC) ********Wikipedia seems to take my side, treating "Superior" differently than the PoE titles in the text, so it's not really just me. People guess and accept a lot of things; it still doesn't really it official in my eyes. Xehanort's Heartless 14:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC) *It's important to note that content standards here haven't really been drawn out; specifically, we don't yet (and are unlikely to ever) adhere to the same standards as Wikipedia (which seems to show "the Superior" as Xemnas' title). This is namely because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with oodles of editors and a very defined purpose; stuff is rejected as content all the time as not being important enough to include, even if it is true,due to lacking "satisfactory" backup regarding sources. It's unlikely that this wiki will be that way, and the majority of editing so far hasn't been as such - as a narrow-content wiki, there's some leeway we're going to have to take, or what we'll have is the two dozen or so Kingdom Hearts articles at Wikipedia split up over hundreds of pages. I don't think anyone wants that. Scottch 15:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Eh. On a minor point, the image caption is fluff. The text clearly treats it as more of an alternate identity than a title. I simply used it as a example of a site that doesn't adhere to the apparent fact that "Superior" is a title, not as an example of something to adhere to. Even with our more lax standards, I don't see it as official. Regardless, may I port over my (now fixed) version? We can include what's on the pages now and decide what to cut out later. Xehanort's Heartless 15:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC) *I'm not sure what the point of excluding the "unknown" qualities would be. They are distinguishing characteristics worth a mention, that seperate, in the case of names, the original members from the newer ones. Why leave off the fact that it is unknown? Scottch 15:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC) **The "Unknown"s are included in the statement "what's on the pages now". Xehanort's Heartless 15:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC) ***Why don't we work it out before switching out templates, and make sure it even works for that matter. The community portal would be a good place to introduce something like this, as we're not the only editors here and I see no reason to switch them out. Scottch 15:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC) ****I don't quite see the problem here. They're basically the same template, only with clearer variable names, nor do I see why you are able to do things of much greater magnitude, like entirely creating new templates without need to consult the "community" such as the YouTube template and this infobox to begin with, yet I cannot make it more clearer for me and others to edit? I'm not even proposing that we remove your somehow superior superficial version. It'd look the exact same, just easier for people to understand how to edit. Xehanort's Heartless 16:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC) *****If they are the same template, there's no reason to switch them out... that is my thought. The infobox template is a generic template copied over from Central Wikia, and the Youtube template is simply a formatting shortcut. The difference is that those templates were new, not replacements - what you're proposing is to substitute out identical templates for no other purpose than to diminish the information they offer. As for the coding being easier, could you put something on their demonstrating how you would format the template? Like an example, liek there is on ? Maybe that can help me to undrstand how it's easier, because currently I don't. Scottch 16:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC) ******New infoboxes require no input. Inclusion of YouTube videos require no input. Yet edits that simply make it more understandable to editors by giving the variables actual names do? You'll have to forgive me if I find your standards absolutely ridiculous. Replacing random numbers with relevant names is not "complex coding". Why are you so intent on preserving your version over something so minor? Xehanort's Heartless 16:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC) *******But it doesn't make it more understandable. The code becomes longer and harder to sift through at the top of a page, particularly for those unfamiliar with wiki coding and looking to edit later on down the page. As it is, the template is on top of the members' pages with little need for editing; already someone seeing something needing correcting will know what to replace by seeing it in the code. Additionally, anyone using the template need only copy the code on the template page and fill in the descriptors. It's already simple enough, making it longer is only going to cause complications for no reason. Scottch 16:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Thank You Thank you for the welcome. I already have files on Inheriwiki and Lord of the Rings Wiki, but I think I'll stay here for a while. I look forward to contributing! Durza Clarification Actually, I've never heard them called "Purebred" and "Emblem" before in my entire life.--Dreyfus 06:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) *Me neither, before I checked the journal transcript. It's in there, as well as the origins, under the Ansem Reports. Scottch 07:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Durza - Eragon Yes, it does. I read the book a while ago. Hostile Program O_O Really? This entire time I have been believing falseness!? I'm shocked! My life shall never be the same again! Thanks for the clarification, and my thanks to Durza if he reads this too (even though he said it in a much harsher way).--Dreyfus 02:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC) *Yeah, I thought it was a heartless too and even reverted Interrobang once, but I looked it up to double check, and I was actually wrong! Scottch 22:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Renaming Other *Be my guest! Works for me just fine!--Dreyfus 22:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Image in a template What is wrong with having an image in a template? As far as I have been able to understand, it doesn't violate any copyright laws, when the image is already "fair use". --Hecko X 06:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC) *"Fair use" means it's only used fairly, and putting it in a greeting wouldn't be fair. Basically, it can only be fair use if it's used to identify the subject for description or critical commentary, and having it in user talk pages wouldn't fulfill those conditions. Scottch 06:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC) *I quite agree with Hecko X, actually. Normally, I wouldn't have. Until I saw the templates on Wookiepedia (examples: Ambig Template, Clean Up Template). Not to be unoriginal, but they have quite a nice idea going. Especially the quotes being used as titles. What do you think about trying that idea?--Dreyfus 21:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC) **It's still a copyvio, I think, even if another wiki uses it. If someone is willing to draw a little something (very ambiguous, so as to not trigger copyvios for drawing a copyrighted character/object/whatever) and upload that, it's fine, but having a fair use image used in user talk space is not really an option. My opinion is based on a) personal respect for the copyright holders, b) Wikia policy, which applies across all wikis and c) US copyright law. The first is just my opinion, but the other two are out of my hands. I can ask staff if I'm on the right page here, but I doubt fair use images in userpages/talk pages would be ok. Note also that those templates on Wookiepedia are only used in articles... Scottch 22:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC) ***I beg to differ. Proof I take it the quote thing is good, then?--Dreyfus 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC) ****Bear in mind that quotes from Kingdom Hearts don't have nearly the classic feel as quotes form Star Wars, that being much older and more famous. Also, I talked to Wikia staff on IRC, and they said that we really shouldn't use fair use images in welcomes and such. Why doesn't someone just draw up something original and upload it into the template? I would myself, but I have the artistry of a toddler. Scottch 00:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC) *****Because, since we're going in to details about it, any fan art of any aspect of the game is a copyright infringement from the artists side. Square just rarely ever actually take any legal action when it happens (because the cases are pretty minor and there are litterally billions of them, so it would be a waste of time and money for them), but still according to your reasons b) and c), we aren't allowed to have them. --Hecko X 00:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC) ******Well, like I said above, if it was something ambiguous enough that it's very unspecific, such as a simple key with enough modifications not to be the Kingdom key but something of its own, but that still was reminiscent of the Kingdom Hearts series, it'd be ok. Making it something original but related would be well within the law. Scottch 00:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC) *******Actually, it would still be copyright infringement. You'd be drawing a keyblade, which is Square "property". --Hecko X 02:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC) *If you make like, say, just a generalized key - they can't go around saying every key drawn ever is Square property. Scottch 02:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC) **That's true, as long as it doesn't fit the design of a keyblade. So as long as you draw something like this, it wouldn't be a problem. --Hecko X 05:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) ***Did you draw that? That would be perfect. Scottch 06:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC) ****I didn't, I just used it as an example. However, all the images here seem to be of free distribution. --Hecko X 06:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Subbing welcome templates This also means that if you decide to add a link to the template, you'll have to manually update them on all the talk pages where they have previously been substituded to, anything less wouldn't be fair to those users. P.S. Sorry for removing your welcome message and adding the "official" welcome message on my own talk page. --Hecko X 06:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC) *Well, it's not really that big of a deal to go update them all. A welcome should be an actual message, hence why it's signed, not just some whimsical notice. I don't plan on going back and re-welcoming all the users I welcomed before the template existed. A welcome message on a person's talk page shouldn't be a fluid thing, it should be a permanent, signed welcome - changing the message every time the message is updated would mean changing the words a person used when welcoming that person in the first place. And any archived welcome messages ought to read as they were first received, for the same reasons. It's how they do it for welcomes pretty much everywhere... Scottch 07:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC) ::If a welcome should be an actual message, you wouldn't have wanted a template in the first place. Already there, it changes from personal to "automated". The signing itself is not necessary, but it's always nice to know who the person, who added the "whimsical notice" on one's page, is. And while a welcome message shouldn't be a fluid thing, the welcome template should (because it is a general message), as more links to help a user might be added. If you feel the need to add a welcome message it could be done below the template. And also, it may not seem like a big deal now, since there's only one user who has it, but once you get up to about 50 users and you then add a link, it becomes a bigger deal, and if this wiki is succesful, even more more people will be here. And because you substituted the template you a) have to substitute the new template manually on all the pages, so that all users have equal chance of knowing what's what (instead of merely altering the template); and b) you'll have to manually find those user pages, because a substituted template doesn't leave behind a link from the original template (the "What links here" function). But do whatever you wish, you run the place after all. I'm just making a note on what I percieve as ineffective and unecessarily time consuming in several "what if" situations. Wether you act on it our not is quite litterally your own worry (especially if one of those "what if"s occour). Over and out, capt'n. --Hecko X 07:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC) :::You bring up some good points, but bear in mind, people who were welcomed, say, a month ago (in the future) aren't going to need an added link for newcomers. However, here's what Wikipedia does: they subst the template and add a link to a "Welcome Newcomers" page so they can have standardized general reading, but also have the benefits I described above of substituting the template. Maybe you'd be interested in maing a welcome page for newcomers and adding a link to it in the template? That way we get the best of both worlds. Scottch 07:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC) ::::That would work significantly better than the current setup. However, I disagree on the notion of members, who have been around for a while, won't need the links. Quite the opposite. There's a stronger possibility that they'll use them more often than the newcomers since the links work as quicklinks to important pages. Like, who would want to type "Kingdom_Hearts_Wiki:Administrators", or that delete nomination thing with the long name, in the search line, if they can just click a link in the first message on their talk page? Same goes for important pages, the name of which they can't recall (yes yes, ironic, I know...). It's just more convenient that way. But an actual "newcomer" page would leave a more effective description of the link than a welcome template can, due to the space restrictions of the template. --Hecko X 07:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC) ::::: is linked to in the welcome template. How does it sound if I make a page and link it in there, such as Kingdom Hearts Wiki:Policy, that lists all of the (very few so far) policy and process pages? Scottch 08:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Templates in Talk pages Nah... I know it doesn't look the best, but people that normally aren't accustomed to the such would be able to see them more easily on the actual article. Usually discussion pages are only gone to when somebody has a concern or something about the article.--Dreyfus 22:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC) *Are you sure? Notices for things like "this article is a featured article" or "this article is about a living person" are usually put on talk pages for that reason. Having a self-reference in the article kind of looks unprofessional. Scottch 22:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC) **Yep. Quite sure. Proof. Uh... I don't wish to be picky and rude and nasty, but it is sort of hard to reply to something you say to me when it isn't on my Talk page... I'm sure you have your reasons, but...--Dreyfus 23:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC) **Oh yeah, and as for going in Talk pages... Example--Dreyfus 00:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC) ***I don't understand, those templates are on the talk page. And the ones on the article aren't permanent, except the "upcoming" ones. And even those will be removed eventually. But is bees ever likely to have an "official" name released? It's such a minor element in the games that it will never be specified further. aybe just putting it on pages where the official title is unsure? ***As for replies, it's customary on a wiki to keep all the conversation in one place and just check back on your contribs to see if they replied, otherwise the conversation gets fragmented. I can reply on your talk page int eh future if you want. Scottch 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC) No thank you I don't really understand the harm not deleting them could do. Thanks anyway. Durza - January 23rd - 17:01 PM *Ok. Most people probably don't care, but I figure it's good to have the option. Scottch 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC) You're Welcome ^_^ You're very welcome! Oh, and before you go getting rid of it, just know that the Princesses of Destiny whose murals appeared in Awakening, I marked in the category Awakening. That was the reason, so hesitate before you "delate!"--Dreyfus 04:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC) :Ok, sounds good - had I deleted that category before or something? I don't remember. Scottch 04:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Got it I understand. Sorry about that. - Durza - January 26th - 4:02 PM *No biggie, thanks fro being understanding! Scottch 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC) btw, you can generate an automatic signature and timestamp with four tildaes: ~~~~.